that doesn't say that

Quote
dzrams

Quote
zn

Quote
dzrams

Quote
zn

Quote
dzrams

Quote
zn

Quote
dzrams

Quote
zn

Quote
waterfield
I don't know if there is any fault here. But I do know that if he doesn't play this year his contract rolls over to the next year-meaning he loses one more year before he can be a free agent. I think the Rams hold the cards in this one.

Well no actually it doesn't work like that since he only needs one more accrued year to be an FA. So he just reports next year and that becomes his 4th accrued year, and he's an FA. He wasn't going to become a FA after this year anyway. So he's just in the same boat either way.

BUT it's not going to get to that.

He will be signed to an extension this year.

That's what the signs look like.

....

I originally thought that he just needed one more year to become a FA too but now I believe his contract is tolled.

Here is what the CBA says under APPENDIX A, NFL PLAYER CONTRACT, Paragraph 16:

16. EXTENSION. Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, if Player becomes a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or any other country, or retires from professional football as an active player, or otherwise fails or refuses to perform his services under this contract, then this contract will be tolled between the date of Player’s induction into the Armed Forces, or his retirement, or his failure or refusal to perform, and the later date of his return to professional football. During the period this contract is tolled, Player will not be entitled to any compensation or benefits. On Player’s return to professional football, the term of this contract will be extended for a period of time equal to the number of seasons (to the nearest multiple of one) remaining
at the time the contract was tolled. The right of renewal, if any, contained in this contract will remain in effect until the end of any such extended term.

The way I read this is, if he doesn't play at all this year, he owes the Rams 2 more seasons. Even if he plays next year and has 4 accrued seasons, he would still owe them another season.

I can't make that out.

I don't know if you're right or not.

All I know is what is said about accrued seasons in terms of this year when it comes to Donald:

Quote

August 7, 2017. Tomorrow, an off day for the Rams, is the deadline for players under contract to report in order to earn an accrued season for free agency. So, Aaron Donald will technically lose an accrued season. But it isn’t a big deal for him. Players need four accrued seasons to be unrestricted free agents. Donald entered this year with three and already had his fifth-year option picked up. He would basically have to also hold out past that deadline next year, too, for it to really affect him.

Alden Gonzalez, ESPN Staff Writer: [www.espn.com]


.

Here are the requirements to be a Free Agent in the CBA:

“Unrestricted Free Agent” means a Veteran with four or more Accrued Seasons,
who has completed performance of his Player Contract, and who is no longer subject to
any exclusive negotiating rights, Right of First Refusal, or Draft Choice Compensation in
favor of his Prior Club.

Notice the bolded....

You have to have 4 accrued seasons AND have completed your obligations to the team.

Except when the issue is the contract itself, right?

And the team is not obligated to discount a season. The way I understand that, the team can elect to do that--it is not automatically obligated by the league to do it.

Therefore any player in his right mind makes sure the team waives that possibility before signing.

This goes back to the Rams saying they would respect AD's decision to hold out. I take that as meaning they will not make the hold out itself an issue. No threats, no reprimands, no holding it against him. They said that quite openly and have said or done nothing to rescind that, or alter it, or to back down from it.


...

The contract is not at issue. AD is under a contract. That doesn't change just b/c both sides agree that it needs to be changed and are working on a new one.

I don't follow what you mean by 'obligated to discount a season.'

I didn't say the contract changed but both sides agreed that it is outdated and the Rams agreed they would respect a decision to holdout. And of course traditionally holdouts work this way---the contract itself is the thing in dispute, which means a lot of the ethical language we use about an obligated player is mitigated some. (I find all that language a bit selective anyway, since no one complains when the team does something like ask Wells to give back money.)

I was talking about the presumed tolled year. (Which I am still not sure applies.) A team is not automatically obligated to enforce that---it elects to. Since a team controls that, any player who signs an extension after holding out simply includes as part of the deal the team agreeing not to apply it. It seems to me that no team that signed a player to an extension would not risk losing the player's goodwill by enforcing that.

A team does not elect to enforce the tolling clause. They have no choice in the matter.

Here is the first thing the CBA says about the NFL Player Contract (that’s the Appendix A contract I cited to above about the tolling): “The NFL Player Contract form attached hereto as Appendix A will be used for all player signings. This form cannot be amended without the approval of the NFL and the NFLPA.”

The Rams don’t just get to waive the toll year requirement. That would have to be approved by the League which of course won’t happen. Other teams wouldn’t want that precedent established.

If AD doesn’t play this year, he owes the Rams 2 more years.

The toll clause applies. It’s not ambiguous. Which is why AD will show up some time this year whether an extension is agreed to or not.

The context of this toll discussion wasn’t about how it applies after a player signs an extension, it was about waterfield’s correct statement about what happens if AD doesn’t play this year at all.

It does not say anywhere there that waiving a toll year is NOT elective and that applying one is mandatory.

It just says that contracts are approved by the league.

The issue is you did not produce language saying toll years cannot be waived in event of contract disputes. That language exists nowhere in anything you have produced.

But I will concede the point when you provide me with specific language directly stating that under no conditions can a team waive a toll year. It has to be direct, not indirect surmising. Direct, straightforward. While you're at it see if you can find something somewhere which states Donald is worrying about a toll year and will act accordingly. If that exists I am all ears. So in the weird eventuality that he does not play this year at all, which is unlikely at best, according to the source I am asking you to provide, he is bothered about a toll year? That's out there in print?

I think Waterfield might appreciate you jumping in for him, but he was not talking about toll years, he was talking about accrued years. Chances are he didn't know about toll years. Either way I think personally this is a lot of lowgrade minutia about nothing. t's above all a moot point since I see no eventuality where they don't sign an extension this year. Both sides want to and the hangups are normal contract things.

If you don't mind, I don't intend to argue this all day so find me direct, explicit language saying either a team cannot elect to waive a toll year or that Donald is specifically concerned about a toll year. I will respond to that kind of thing if you produce it.

Otherwise I am done and moving on. We'll have to agree to disagree.

.

....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2017 08:41AM by zn.